Serial Killers

Just another Kissthis.com Blogs weblog

Why do so many Americans think Petraeus is 'making a report' when he is testifying?

He is required by law to testify before Congress by Sept. 15th. That’s what he’s doing. Why are Americans making excuses for him not taking an oath, by saying he’s only ‘making a report’ – like a kid giving a book report, I guess – rather than testifying?

Why do so Many Americans here on Yahoo just not care that the White House, The Media, and Gen. Petraeus lie to them about our mass murder and torture fest in Iraq?
I’m not a sir, and I’m sure my precious sons don’t find me a waste.

And, btw, your comment is an ‘ad hominem’ response, therefore fallacious, therefore wrong, therefore a waste. G’day.
Of course I would have been with code pink.

Another ad hominem – looks like the Cons just can’t answer the question…..

A surprise!
Germany and Japan attacked us/declared war on us. In the Iraq War, we are the aggressors – we are the germans/japanese in your analogy. Do you really want to go there?
You violent cons are unbelievable – you are like Hitler’s brownshirts.

My father spent his life in the Navy – I never lived anywhere for more than 2 or 3 years because of that.

You are so lame and violent and ridiculous. You just love the boot of the fascist on your face.

Was it WRONG for the US to issue a condemnation for the Armenian genocide?

pundits are now saying that this will hurt relations with the vital ally Turkey.

does this mean that the 1915 genocide should not be condemned for political gain and expedience?

perhaps if Germany complained about the bad image the holocaust has given them we should rescind our condemnation of it?

how can you justify NOT condemning acts of genocide and mass murder, just for political ends?
Bryan –
if the right thing had been done in 1915 and the issue addressed then the democrats wouldn’t be able to take political advantage of the situation. since our congress can’t seem to force King George to leave Iraq, maybe Turkey can help us get out of Iraq.

nah, i doubt it. we both know that, even if the troops didn’t have food or water, Bush would continue to "support" them so much that he wouldn’t let them leave.

Why does Bush not want Congress to recognize Armenian genocide when in 2000 he said otherwise?

Here’s what he said in 2000:
"The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people."

Now that congress is ‘recognizing the tragic suffering of the Armenian people’ why is he against it? He was elected President and now he doesn’t want it recognized. Why the change?

Should those in congress be tried for mass murder?

It’s kind of obvious, since congress (NOT JUST BUSH!) has to take responsibilty in the killings in Iraq, because of lies. Including Dick Cheney.
The congress gave the OK for invading Iraq, and liberating it.


Powered by WordPress Lab
Powered by Yahoo! Answers